Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

 

I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting harder

to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems Circuit City

sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears time is running

out.

 

I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new system with

WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet). Which is a bit scary.

WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be tolerable!). I'm almost

tempted to get another computer with XP - before that is too late.

 

I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about $1000,

complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if anyone has any

additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

[Guest Rod]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about $1000,

> complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if anyone has any

> additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

 

Gulp!

why not buy your XP sp2

and buy a cheap P4 (auction)

You should walk away under $150

[Guest Nigel Stapley]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

>

> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting harder

> to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems Circuit City

> sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears time is running

> out.

>

> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new system with

> WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet). Which is a bit scary.

> WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be tolerable!). I'm almost

> tempted to get another computer with XP - before that is too late.

>

> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about $1000,

> complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if anyone has any

> additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

>

>

 

As I said on an earlier thread, I've just bought a new PC and I insisted

on it having XP Pro rather than Vista.

 

(The fact that, when I got it home, it had Vista Home Premium installed

on it instead is to be accounted for by a techie on auto-pilot rather

than malice - it was quickly rebuilt with my choice of OS).

 

OK, what with everything (multifunction printer/scanner/copier, Netgear

router, monitor and video capture card) it cost the equivalent of about

USD1750, but if you have one built to your own spec you'll always have

to pay more.

 

Do you not have any small outlets in your area you can go to? I know

they're few and far between in the US because of the Wal-Mart Effect,

but there must be one somewhere quite near. They would tend to be more

flexible and amenable, I would have thought.

 

--

Regards

 

Nigel Stapley

 

http://www.judgemental.plus.com

 

<reply-to will bounce>

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> it looks like even WinXP is getting harder to find on a new

> system these days. I checked the Dell site, and apparently

> you can still get a new system with WinXP,

 

Nigel Stapley wrote:

> As I said on an earlier thread, I've just bought a new PC and I

> insisted on it having XP Pro rather than Vista.

 

There have been some law suits in Europe (over the past year, maybe 2)

where people have successfully obtain refunds (100 to 200 Euros) for

the OS that came on their new system for which they did not want.

 

There is a growing issue of whether or not vendors have a choice (or

are being strong-armed by Micro$oft) to NOT sell "naked PC's" - PC's

with no operating system. It seems to be the case that either

Micro$oft, or big (box) vendors, want the general public to believe

that it is "illegal", that there is some law that prevents them

selling a PC without an installed OS.

> Anyways, if anyone has any additional info they want to share,

> go for it. :-)

 

There are plenty of sources for XP and keys on the net, as well as

activation hacks.

 

If you're not comfortable downloading software via torrent, then go to

a smaller computer parts shop and ask them to order (or they probably

have) OEM "system-builder" versions of XP. That version should be

available well into next year.

 

Has anyone heard if XP-SP3 will be available as a "system-builder"

version?

 

Supposedly, SP3 has been benchmarked to be 10% faster then SP2, while

it's generally accepted that Vista is 50% the speed or performance of

XP.

 

Which raises the question - is SP3 available right now - somehow,

somewhere?

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Nigel Stapley wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

>>

>> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting

harder

>> to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems Circuit

City

>> sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears time is running

>> out.

>>

>> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new system

with

>> WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet). Which is a bit

scary.

>> WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be tolerable!). I'm almost

>> tempted to get another computer with XP - before that is too late.

>>

>> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about $1000,

>> complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if anyone has any

>> additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

>>

>

> As I said on an earlier thread, I've just bought a new PC and I insisted

> on it having XP Pro rather than Vista.

 

OK, sorry I missed that thread. Not sure what brand you got, but from

below, it sounds pretty loaded.

> (The fact that, when I got it home, it had Vista Home Premium installed

> on it instead is to be accounted for by a techie on auto-pilot rather

> than malice - it was quickly rebuilt with my choice of OS).

 

Good. Not sure why you needed or wanted the Premium OS, but I guess you're

more of a power user - well yeah, looking at the list below. :-)

> OK, what with everything (multifunction printer/scanner/copier, Netgear

> router, monitor and video capture card) it cost the equivalent of about

> USD1750, but if you have one built to your own spec you'll always have

> to pay more.

>

> Do you not have any small outlets in your area you can go to? I know

> they're few and far between in the US because of the Wal-Mart Effect,

> but there must be one somewhere quite near. They would tend to be more

> flexible and amenable, I would have thought.

 

You're probably right. But then again, Dell ain't too bad either, and at

least is a recognizable name brand. (I'm using my old one right now).

 

Although when I went to their website, I found that my service tag isn't

even recognized anymore, nor is my system listed (for parts replacements)

anymore. (Its' a Dell Dimension 4100 ... must be too old). Heck, it's

only 6 years old or so!

 

As for the Circuit City reference to the op systems, I just looked that up

online, although we do have one here locally. I'm assuming that what they

listed online reflects their store policy - no more WinXP. Maybe the way

it is for MOST outlets now.

 

In fact, IIRC, didn't MS say the new systems HAD to sell with Vista, and not

XP, by this coming Summer? It's beyond me why anyone would want Vista.

[Guest Don Phillipson]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:47486578.19AA6BCD@Guy.com...

> There have been some law suits in Europe (over the past year, maybe 2)

> where people have successfully obtain refunds (100 to 200 Euros) for

> the OS that came on their new system for which they did not want.

>

> There is a growing issue of whether or not vendors have a choice (or

> are being strong-armed by Micro$oft) to NOT sell "naked PC's" - PC's

> with no operating system. It seems to be the case that either

> Micro$oft, or big (box) vendors, want the general public to believe

> that it is "illegal", that there is some law that prevents them

> selling a PC without an installed OS.

 

This last seems both stupid and unnecessay so long as

there are still family-owned individual PC stores that choose

their own hardware and assemble their own systems.

 

Actual packages offered today by manufacturers e.g. HP

and chains e.g. Best Buy remind me of the era of Osborne

and Kaypro 25 years ago. You notionally spent $2,000 on

four or five software packages and got a free (luggable)

computer in the bargain.

 

--

Don Phillipson

Carlsbad Springs

(Ottawa, Canada)

[Guest Robert Baer]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

>

> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting harder

> to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems Circuit City

> sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears time is running

> out.

>

> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new system with

> WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet). Which is a bit scary.

> WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be tolerable!). I'm almost

> tempted to get another computer with XP - before that is too late.

>

> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about $1000,

> complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if anyone has any

> additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

>

>

According to some trade mags, there are a lot of computer systems

support places that are making a mint *downgrading* Vista to XP (for

some,up to 20% are conversions to Linux diue to the *NOT* high quality

and *NOT* superior performance of Vista).

And there seems to be a rumor that most of Dell's sales are to XP,

not Vista systems.

 

98% of my online and other computer work is via Win98SE; i think that

useage has helped greatly in that i have not gotten bit with a virus in

over 5 years.

[Guest Dan]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

XP is set to be included in new systems if the user wants it currently until

the end of June 2008.

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Robert Baer wrote:

> And there seems to be a rumor that most of Dell's sales are to XP,

> not Vista systems.

 

We usually get a Dell sales flyer in the mail every 2 weeks.

 

Just prior to Vista coming out, and perhaps for a month or two

afterwards, all of the pictures of Dell systems in the flyers showed a

typical Vista desktop scene on the screens in the advertisements.

 

After that, Vista disappeared from the screens, replaced by some sort

of generic screen-saver image, giving no indication what OS was

running on the systems in the advertisements. Vista stopped being

mentioned with prominent, bold type. The last time I remember looking

at them (a few months ago), many systems either came standard with XP,

or came either with XP or Vista. You had to read the fine print of

the specs for each system in order to see this.

[Guest Roger Fink]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

>

> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting

> harder to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems

> Circuit City sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears

> time is running out.

>

> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new

> system with WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet).

> Which is a bit scary. WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be

> tolerable!). I'm almost tempted to get another computer with XP -

> before that is too late.

>

> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about

> $1000, complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if

> anyone has any additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

 

Bill, I've been using W2K in a new white box for over a year now (OK, not so

new anymore) . I bought the OS off of ebay which you can still do. If you

are uninterested in changing your "user experience" from 98, by which I mean

the GUI, quicklaunch, access to data and OS files through the Explorer file

tree, W2K is the way to go. You can replicate all of this EXACTLY as it

appears and functions on your present system with one exeception, namely

that because of its more complex hierarchal setup due to its intended use as

a business OS, you have to dig a little deeper into the W2K Explorer file

tree to access your personal data but to a large degree this can be

mitigated as well. In all the time I have been using it, I have never

experienced a BSOD. It is still supported, but if you're basing an OS choice

on this criteria, then you most likely want to avoid any OS from a company

relies on monopoly-induced phased obsolescence to keep up its income stream.

 

An additional advantage: all your 98 programs will install successfully, and

I daresay work better, on W2K than 98. I reinstalled Office 97, no problem.

And Paint Shop Pro 7, which I've used for a long time, will not even install

on XP. But there are significant negatives. The big on for me is that W2K/XP

is the Great Divide in Windows hardware compatibility (obviously XP/Vista is

an even bigger one for most folks). For example most of the better MP3 units

have associated software only installable on XP or later. So you have to

think in terms of things like keeping spare print heads around and such.

Another downer is that WGA is required for Windows Update (not too big a

deal in this instance, however - since the OS itself doesn't require

activation you won't be on the phone pleading with a twenty year old kid to

revalidate your operating system). One final thing about W2K, setting it up

is considerably more difficult, but it's not rocket science, and the

microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup is excellent for this, with a

decided lack of extra chromosome types posting there.

 

If you want to move on to something different and modern, rather than try

and replicate what you now have, and you don't mind getting fleeced, than

I'd suggest a Mac. I used an OSX laptop for about two weeks and had to

resort to the Help system maybe once. IMO, it's a highly intuitive,

beautifully executed piece of software.

 

Good luck.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Roger Fink wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

>>

>> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting

>> harder to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems

>> Circuit City sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears

>> time is running out.

>>

>> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new

>> system with WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet).

>> Which is a bit scary. WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be

>> tolerable!). I'm almost tempted to get another computer with XP -

>> before that is too late.

>>

>> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about

>> $1000, complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if

>> anyone has any additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

>

> Bill, I've been using W2K in a new white box for over a year now (OK, not

so

> new anymore) . I bought the OS off of ebay which you can still do. If you

> are uninterested in changing your "user experience" from 98, by which I

mean

> the GUI, quicklaunch, access to data and OS files through the Explorer

file

> tree, W2K is the way to go. You can replicate all of this EXACTLY as it

> appears and functions on your present system with one exeception, namely

> that because of its more complex hierarchal setup due to its intended use

as

> a business OS, you have to dig a little deeper into the W2K Explorer file

> tree to access your personal data but to a large degree this can be

> mitigated as well. In all the time I have been using it, I have never

> experienced a BSOD. It is still supported, but if you're basing an OS

choice

> on this criteria, then you most likely want to avoid any OS from a company

> relies on monopoly-induced phased obsolescence to keep up its income

stream.

>

> An additional advantage: all your 98 programs will install successfully,

and

> I daresay work better, on W2K than 98. I reinstalled Office 97, no

problem.

> And Paint Shop Pro 7, which I've used for a long time, will not even

install

> on XP.

 

Wow, that is a big surprise to me. I wonder why not? Maybe it doesn't

recognize the newer operating system, so its installer balks?

> But there are significant negatives. The big on for me is that W2K/XP

> is the Great Divide in Windows hardware compatibility (obviously XP/Vista

is

> an even bigger one for most folks). For example most of the better MP3

units

> have associated software only installable on XP or later.

 

But the older apps are still ok (at least for me). (Admitedly it's getting

hard to find newer stuff that is Win98 compatible).

 

It also sounds like you weren't too impressed with XP.

> So you have to

> think in terms of things like keeping spare print heads around and such.

> Another downer is that WGA is required for Windows Update (not too big a

> deal in this instance, however - since the OS itself doesn't require

> activation you won't be on the phone pleading with a twenty year old kid

to

> revalidate your operating system).

 

WGA?? It's to verify that you have bonafide system files, before

allowing any updates to them, I presume? (haven't used the Windows

Update thing in ages anyway)

> One final thing about W2K, setting it up

> is considerably more difficult, but it's not rocket science, and the

> microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup is excellent for this, with a

> decided lack of extra chromosome types posting there.

>

> If you want to move on to something different and modern, rather than try

> and replicate what you now have, and you don't mind getting fleeced, than

> I'd suggest a Mac. I used an OSX laptop for about two weeks and had to

> resort to the Help system maybe once. IMO, it's a highly intuitive,

> beautifully executed piece of software.

>

> Good luck.

 

Thanks.

At this point, I'm not doing much of anything, because I still haven't

convinced myself that I *have to*. And - I really don't want to have to

deal with TWO computer systems, (AND keep track of all the data files

between them), unless I get a bit more worried. :-)

 

Everything I want, I have, anyways, so maybe I was just overreacting. But

the idea that in the not-too-distant future, little will be available except

Vista and Vista compatible systems (for also handling some multimedia

work)... is a bit horrific)

 

Maybe at that point (assuming the computer dies), one should consider

Linux - LOL. Or as you say W2K.

[Guest thanatoid]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

news:ebvJI8LMIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> Roger Fink wrote:

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE

>>> fan, but....

>>>

>>> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even

>>> WinXP is getting harder to find on a new system these

>>> days. (For example, it seems Circuit City sells their

>>> systems only with Vista now). It appears time is

>>> running out.

 

About a year ago Dell was selling a cheap basic system with a

freeDOS CD and nothing else. That system was, to put it

mildly, more than adequate to run 98SE. I'm going to check

their site just out of curiosity, but have they stopped? Did

someone somewhere put a finger to a trigger? Did no one buy

those systems? (Are we not men? Are we sheep-o?)

 

<SNIP>

>> Bill, I've been using W2K in a new white box for over a

>> year now (OK, not so new anymore) . I bought the OS off of

>> ebay which you can still do.

 

This means one can do the same (get a machine built to order

which I have /always/ thought is the only way to go) and

install 98 or even 3.1 if one feels like it.

 

<SNIP>

>> An additional advantage: all your 98 programs will install

>> successfully,

> and I daresay work better, on W2K than 98. I reinstalled

>> Office 97, no problem.

>> And Paint Shop Pro 7, which I've used for a long time,

>> will not even install on XP.

 

PageMaker 7 was released only because 6.52 would not work on

XP (a little strange considering Adobe was busy killing it in

the back room anyway). Many excellent programs don't work on

XP or Vista. But the average consumer (I don't believe the

term "computer user" means much any more) is more interested

in transparent floating windows.

 

<SNIP>

>> But there are significant negatives. The big on for me is

>> that W2K/XP is the Great Divide in Windows hardware

>> compatibility (obviously XP/Vista

>> is an even bigger one for most folks). For example most of

>> the better MP3

>> units have associated software only installable on XP or

>> later.

 

Can you explain what you mean? I have 2 computers, a 95B and

a 98SE Lite, and do a LOT of music, mp3 *and* WAV, and I am

not aware of anything (except maybe some stupid 3MB

tagging/organizing mp3 program) which won't work on those 2

platforms - or that I can't find an equivalent for that will.

 

The WELL-WRITTEN programs DO run on all 32-bit platforms.

> But the older apps are still ok (at least for me).

> (Admitedly it's getting hard to find newer stuff that is

> Win98 compatible).

 

IMO nothing really worthwhile has been written in about 6-8

years, except for new versions of lame :-) ...and Skype - but

it won't run on my machines :-[

 

<SNIP>

> WGA?? It's to verify that you have bonafide system

> files, before allowing any updates to them, I presume?

> (haven't used the Windows Update thing in ages anyway)

 

It's spyware, nothing else. But "they" already know

everything about us anyway. What I like about 95/98 is that I

*never* have to worry about security or updating anything.

Last time I did an upgrade of any core system component was

MAYBE 6 years ago.

>> One final thing about W2K, setting it up

>> is considerably more difficult, but it's not rocket

>> science, and the microsoft.public.win2000.general

>> newsgroup is excellent for this, with a decided lack of

>> extra chromosome types posting there.

>>

>> If you want to move on to something different and modern,

>> rather than try and replicate what you now have, and you

>> don't mind getting fleeced, than I'd suggest a Mac. I used

>> an OSX laptop for about two weeks and had to resort to the

>> Help system maybe once. IMO, it's a highly intuitive,

>> beautifully executed piece of software.

 

Exactly the same has *always* been said about Macs, so I

believe the following comments are not totally irrelevant. I

bought a used Mac about 10 years ago to see if any of "the

stories" were true. I had been working on Windows (that's

what we had at work) for about 6 years by then. It made

little sense, seemed more BOB-like than anything, and it DID

crash. Also, there was no way to get inside it and tweak the

system. Got rid of it after a few weeks of fairly frustrating

playing around. (Hated the default font too.)

 

I'm sure the new OS is better, being (AFAIK) largely based on

25-30 year old code ;-] (astounding, isn't it?) but people

should boycott Apple just for their arrogance ("can't replace

the battery, ma'am, you have to buy a new iPod") and for the

ridiculous prices. Many (NOT all of course) Mac users are in

ONE way not unlike Bang-Olufsen users. "Wow, what an

/amazing/ looking stereo! HOW much did that cost? Where are

your CD's? Oh, those three on that tiny shelf under the TV...

right..."

> Thanks.

> At this point, I'm not doing much of anything, because I

> still haven't convinced myself that I *have to*. And -

> I really don't want to have to deal with TWO computer

> systems, (AND keep track of all the data files between

> them), unless I get a bit more worried. :-)

 

I have 2 computers with a KVM switch, this one does the net,

the other one doesn't even have a modem. I use CD-RW's to

move files between them and have completely different things

on the 2 machines (the main reason I bought the 2GHz 98SE one

is that I was tired of waiting 5 hours to convert 3 minutes

of music between formats on this 166MHz).

> Everything I want, I have, anyways, so maybe I was just

> overreacting. But the idea that in the not-too-distant

> future, little will be available except Vista and Vista

> compatible systems (for also handling some multimedia

> work)... is a bit horrific)

 

My signature of a few months ago said "waiting for the day

when it is illegal to use anything but Vista on any computer

in the world".

> Maybe at that point (assuming the computer dies), one

> should consider Linux - LOL. Or as you say W2K.

 

I HOPE that (while there are less and less as the computer

becomes more of a dumb appliance everyone must have even if

they never turn them on) there will always be at least a few

small neighborhood shops that can build a custom system. And

when NO MB etc. can be found that will run 98, I'm going to

Linux.

[Guest Roger Fink]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

 

 

thanatoid wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

> news:ebvJI8LMIHA.4684@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>

>> Roger Fink wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE

>>>> fan, but....

>>>>

>>>> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even

>>>> WinXP is getting harder to find on a new system these

>>>> days. (For example, it seems Circuit City sells their

>>>> systems only with Vista now). It appears time is

>>>> running out.

>

> About a year ago Dell was selling a cheap basic system with a

> freeDOS CD and nothing else. That system was, to put it

> mildly, more than adequate to run 98SE. I'm going to check

> their site just out of curiosity, but have they stopped? Did

> someone somewhere put a finger to a trigger? Did no one buy

> those systems? (Are we not men? Are we sheep-o?)

>

> <SNIP>

>

>>> Bill, I've been using W2K in a new white box for over a

>>> year now (OK, not so new anymore) . I bought the OS off of

>>> ebay which you can still do.

>

> This means one can do the same (get a machine built to order

> which I have /always/ thought is the only way to go) and

> install 98 or even 3.1 if one feels like it.

>

> <SNIP>

>

>>> An additional advantage: all your 98 programs will install

>>> successfully,

>> and I daresay work better, on W2K than 98. I reinstalled

>>> Office 97, no problem.

>>> And Paint Shop Pro 7, which I've used for a long time,

>>> will not even install on XP.

>

> PageMaker 7 was released only because 6.52 would not work on

> XP (a little strange considering Adobe was busy killing it in

> the back room anyway). Many excellent programs don't work on

> XP or Vista. But the average consumer (I don't believe the

> term "computer user" means much any more) is more interested

> in transparent floating windows.

>

> <SNIP>

>

>>> But there are significant negatives. The big on for me is

>>> that W2K/XP is the Great Divide in Windows hardware

>>> compatibility (obviously XP/Vista

>>> is an even bigger one for most folks). For example most of

>>> the better MP3

>>> units have associated software only installable on XP or

>>> later.

>

> Can you explain what you mean? I have 2 computers, a 95B and

> a 98SE Lite, and do a LOT of music, mp3 *and* WAV, and I am

> not aware of anything (except maybe some stupid 3MB

> tagging/organizing mp3 program) which won't work on those 2

> platforms - or that I can't find an equivalent for that will.

 

I don't know if it's phased obsolescence or what but the major mp3 player

manufacturers I've looked at, like Creative and iRiver, all limit

compatibility to XP and above in their newer players, according to the spec

sheets. I assume this means driver incompatibility - the newer players have

lots of gui and application features but they need to be installed. The one

exception to the XP-or-above rule I've come across is Cowon, who flies

under the radar but is considered one of the very best out there:

 

http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/cowon/d2/

http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/7/

 

Check the specs - works on just about anything.

> The WELL-WRITTEN programs DO run on all 32-bit platforms.

>

>> But the older apps are still ok (at least for me).

>> (Admitedly it's getting hard to find newer stuff that is

>> Win98 compatible).

>

> IMO nothing really worthwhile has been written in about 6-8

> years, except for new versions of lame :-) ...and Skype - but

> it won't run on my machines :-[

>

> <SNIP>

>

>> WGA?? It's to verify that you have bonafide system

>> files, before allowing any updates to them, I presume?

>> (haven't used the Windows Update thing in ages anyway)

>

> It's spyware, nothing else. But "they" already know

> everything about us anyway. What I like about 95/98 is that I

> *never* have to worry about security or updating anything.

> Last time I did an upgrade of any core system component was

> MAYBE 6 years ago.

>

>>> One final thing about W2K, setting it up

>>> is considerably more difficult, but it's not rocket

>>> science, and the microsoft.public.win2000.general

>>> newsgroup is excellent for this, with a decided lack of

>>> extra chromosome types posting there.

>>>

>>> If you want to move on to something different and modern,

>>> rather than try and replicate what you now have, and you

>>> don't mind getting fleeced, than I'd suggest a Mac. I used

>>> an OSX laptop for about two weeks and had to resort to the

>>> Help system maybe once. IMO, it's a highly intuitive,

>>> beautifully executed piece of software.

>

> Exactly the same has *always* been said about Macs, so I

> believe the following comments are not totally irrelevant. I

> bought a used Mac about 10 years ago to see if any of "the

> stories" were true. I had been working on Windows (that's

> what we had at work) for about 6 years by then. It made

> little sense, seemed more BOB-like than anything, and it DID

> crash. Also, there was no way to get inside it and tweak the

> system. Got rid of it after a few weeks of fairly frustrating

> playing around. (Hated the default font too.)

 

About five years ago I tried my sister-in-law's mac laptop and thought it

was faddish, gimmicky, and arbitrary, and I came to harbor serious doubts

about the mental marbles of its screeching adherents. Five years later, same

sister-in-law but new computer, and it's a different story. There is still

arbitrariness, but I'll accept, say, the "hall of mirrors' effect , or

whatever you call it, on the desktop program icons because all the major

conceptual decisions are not arbitrary. They are grounded in logic, clarity,

and ease of use without dumbing down the user experience. (It does sound

though like they screwed a few things up on their latest release, however,

including transparent menu panes)

> I'm sure the new OS is better, being (AFAIK) largely based on

> 25-30 year old code ;-] (astounding, isn't it?) but people

> should boycott Apple just for their arrogance ("can't replace

> the battery, ma'am, you have to buy a new iPod") and for the

> ridiculous prices. Many (NOT all of course) Mac users are in

> ONE way not unlike Bang-Olufsen users. "Wow, what an

> /amazing/ looking stereo! HOW much did that cost? Where are

> your CD's? Oh, those three on that tiny shelf under the TV...

> right..."

>

>> Thanks.

>> At this point, I'm not doing much of anything, because I

>> still haven't convinced myself that I *have to*. And -

>> I really don't want to have to deal with TWO computer

>> systems, (AND keep track of all the data files between

>> them), unless I get a bit more worried. :-)

>

> I have 2 computers with a KVM switch, this one does the net,

> the other one doesn't even have a modem. I use CD-RW's to

> move files between them and have completely different things

> on the 2 machines (the main reason I bought the 2GHz 98SE one

> is that I was tired of waiting 5 hours to convert 3 minutes

> of music between formats on this 166MHz).

>

>> Everything I want, I have, anyways, so maybe I was just

>> overreacting. But the idea that in the not-too-distant

>> future, little will be available except Vista and Vista

>> compatible systems (for also handling some multimedia

>> work)... is a bit horrific)

>

> My signature of a few months ago said "waiting for the day

> when it is illegal to use anything but Vista on any computer

> in the world".

>

>> Maybe at that point (assuming the computer dies), one

>> should consider Linux - LOL. Or as you say W2K.

>

> I HOPE that (while there are less and less as the computer

> becomes more of a dumb appliance everyone must have even if

> they never turn them on) there will always be at least a few

> small neighborhood shops that can build a custom system. And

> when NO MB etc. can be found that will run 98, I'm going to

> Linux.

[Guest Rod]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

 

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message

> It's spyware, nothing else. But "they" already know

> everything about us anyway. What I like about 95/98 is that I

> *never* have to worry about security or updating anything.

 

Hallelujah! ain't that the truth.

[Guest thanatoid]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

"Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in

news:OTGKWuXMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

 

<SNIP>

>> Can you explain what you mean? I have 2 computers, a 95B

>> and a 98SE Lite, and do a LOT of music, mp3 *and* WAV, and

>> I am not aware of anything (except maybe some stupid 3MB

>> tagging/organizing mp3 program) which won't work on those

>> 2 platforms - or that I can't find an equivalent for that

>> will.

>

> I don't know if it's phased obsolescence or what but the

> major mp3 player manufacturers I've looked at, like

> Creative and iRiver, all limit compatibility to XP and

> above in their newer players, according to the spec sheets.

> I assume this means driver incompatibility - the newer

> players have lots of gui and application features but they

> need to be installed. The one exception to the XP-or-above

> rule I've come across is Cowon, who flies under the radar

> but is considered one of the very best out there:

>

> http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/cowon/d2/

> http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/7/

>

> Check the specs - works on just about anything.

 

Oh, I get it - you mean whether the portable mp3 players will

interface properly with the computers for transfers etc... I

thought you were talking about wav/mp3/flac/etc. programs just

ON the computer.

 

Considering the age range those units are generally targeted at,

it makes as much sense as anything these days. Most of their

owners are not old computer users, they use new XP/Vista

machines, often in their parents' living rooms. Not to mention a

DB-9 connector is bigger than the mini iPod (or whatever it's

called) so USB to mini-USB (or whatever THEY'RE called) cables

are the only thing that can be used.

 

I use STP from http://www.tinyapps.org to play mp3's on my computers -

but I usually play them in my DVD player. (I only own TWO actual

DVD's - and they're *music* ! - but I have about 180 mp3 discs

and I am just about to finish transferring all my records and

cassettes to mp3.)

 

I don't know how old you are, but when Sony brought out one of

their (IMO) greatest pieces of engineering, the Walkman WM-F10,

IIRC around 1982, I bought one and used it for 3-6 hours every

single day for about 8 years until it FINALLY died. It was an

incredible machine, just millimeters larger than a cassette

case. But I am not into portable music any more. I don't get out

of the house much, for one thing.

[Guest pjp]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

 

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message

news:Xns99F6159845941thanexit@66.250.146.158...

> "Roger Fink" <fink@manana.org> wrote in

> news:OTGKWuXMIHA.5300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

>

> <SNIP>

>

> >> Can you explain what you mean? I have 2 computers, a 95B

> >> and a 98SE Lite, and do a LOT of music, mp3 *and* WAV, and

> >> I am not aware of anything (except maybe some stupid 3MB

> >> tagging/organizing mp3 program) which won't work on those

> >> 2 platforms - or that I can't find an equivalent for that

> >> will.

> >

> > I don't know if it's phased obsolescence or what but the

> > major mp3 player manufacturers I've looked at, like

> > Creative and iRiver, all limit compatibility to XP and

> > above in their newer players, according to the spec sheets.

> > I assume this means driver incompatibility - the newer

> > players have lots of gui and application features but they

> > need to be installed. The one exception to the XP-or-above

> > rule I've come across is Cowon, who flies under the radar

> > but is considered one of the very best out there:

> >

> > http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/cowon/d2/

> > http://www.cowonamerica.com/products/iaudio/7/

> >

> > Check the specs - works on just about anything.

>

> Oh, I get it - you mean whether the portable mp3 players will

> interface properly with the computers for transfers etc... I

> thought you were talking about wav/mp3/flac/etc. programs just

> ON the computer.

 

This ease of moving music etc. on todays mp3 players is great. What I can't

help but wonder is why then so many idiots are so keen to have an iPod which

convolutes that process so extremely, e.g. even though an iPod is seen by XP

and one can copy files on/off it, those files cannot be "played" by the iPod

without going through the iTunes software.

> Considering the age range those units are generally targeted at,

> it makes as much sense as anything these days. Most of their

> owners are not old computer users, they use new XP/Vista

> machines, often in their parents' living rooms. Not to mention a

> DB-9 connector is bigger than the mini iPod (or whatever it's

> called) so USB to mini-USB (or whatever THEY'RE called) cables

> are the only thing that can be used.

>

> I use STP from http://www.tinyapps.org to play mp3's on my computers -

> but I usually play them in my DVD player. (I only own TWO actual

> DVD's - and they're *music* ! - but I have about 180 mp3 discs

> and I am just about to finish transferring all my records and

> cassettes to mp3.)

>

> I don't know how old you are, but when Sony brought out one of

> their (IMO) greatest pieces of engineering, the Walkman WM-F10,

> IIRC around 1982, I bought one and used it for 3-6 hours every

> single day for about 8 years until it FINALLY died. It was an

> incredible machine, just millimeters larger than a cassette

> case. But I am not into portable music any more. I don't get out

> of the house much, for one thing.

[Guest PCR]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| Roger Fink wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan,

|>> but....

|>>

|>> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is

|>> getting harder to find on a new system these days. (For

|>> example, it seems Circuit City sells their systems only with Vista

|>> now). It appears time is running out.

|>>

|>> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new

|>> system with WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet).

|>> Which is a bit scary. WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be

|>> tolerable!). I'm almost tempted to get another computer with XP -

|>> before that is too late.

|>>

|>> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about

|>> $1000, complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if

|>> anyone has any additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

|>

|> Bill, I've been using W2K in a new white box for over a year now

|> (OK, not so new anymore) . I bought the OS off of ebay which you can

|> still do. If you are uninterested in changing your "user experience"

|> from 98, by which I mean the GUI, quicklaunch, access to data and OS

|> files through the Explorer file tree, W2K is the way to go. You can

|> replicate all of this EXACTLY as it appears and functions on your

|> present system with one exeception, namely that because of its more

|> complex hierarchal setup due to its intended use as a business OS,

|> you have to dig a little deeper into the W2K Explorer file tree to

|> access your personal data but to a large degree this can be

|> mitigated as well. In all the time I have been using it, I have

|> never experienced a BSOD. It is still supported, but if you're

|> basing an OS choice on this criteria, then you most likely want to

|> avoid any OS from a company relies on monopoly-induced phased

|> obsolescence to keep up its income stream.

|>

|> An additional advantage: all your 98 programs will install

|> successfully, and I daresay work better, on W2K than 98. I

|> reinstalled Office 97, no problem. And Paint Shop Pro 7, which I've

|> used for a long time, will not even install on XP.

|

| Wow, that is a big surprise to me. I wonder why not? Maybe it

| doesn't recognize the newer operating system, so its installer balks?

|

|> But there are significant negatives. The big on for me is that W2K/XP

|> is the Great Divide in Windows hardware compatibility (obviously

|> XP/Vista is an even bigger one for most folks). For example most of

|> the better MP3 units have associated software only installable on XP

|> or later.

|

| But the older apps are still ok (at least for me). (Admitedly it's

| getting hard to find newer stuff that is Win98 compatible).

|

| It also sounds like you weren't too impressed with XP.

|

|> So you have to

|> think in terms of things like keeping spare print heads around and

|> such. Another downer is that WGA is required for Windows Update (not

|> too big a deal in this instance, however - since the OS itself

|> doesn't require activation you won't be on the phone pleading with a

|> twenty year old kid to revalidate your operating system).

|

| WGA?? It's to verify that you have bonafide system files, before

| allowing any updates to them, I presume? (haven't used the

| Windows Update thing in ages anyway)

|

|> One final thing about W2K, setting it up

|> is considerably more difficult, but it's not rocket science, and the

|> microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup is excellent for this,

|> with a decided lack of extra chromosome types posting there.

|>

|> If you want to move on to something different and modern, rather

|> than try and replicate what you now have, and you don't mind getting

|> fleeced, than I'd suggest a Mac. I used an OSX laptop for about two

|> weeks and had to resort to the Help system maybe once. IMO, it's a

|> highly intuitive, beautifully executed piece of software.

|>

|> Good luck.

|

| Thanks.

| At this point, I'm not doing much of anything, because I still haven't

| convinced myself that I *have to*. And - I really don't want to

| have to deal with TWO computer systems, (AND keep track of all the

| data files between them), unless I get a bit more worried. :-)

 

Nah, nah-- don't worry! You & I, Colorado, must be the last surviving

Win98 user-- just as thanatoid is of Win95B! And I doubt he's as

suicidal as he claims to be!

 

| Everything I want, I have, anyways, so maybe I was just overreacting.

 

Absolutely! Be content-- as you always have been!

 

| But the idea that in the not-too-distant future, little will be

| available except Vista and Vista compatible systems (for also

| handling some multimedia work)... is a bit horrific)

|

| Maybe at that point (assuming the computer dies), one should consider

| Linux - LOL. Or as you say W2K.

 

They'll always be something new! Vista isn't the last one!

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Roger Fink wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan,

>>>> but....

>>>>

>>>> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is

>>>> getting harder to find on a new system these days. (For

>>>> example, it seems Circuit City sells their systems only with Vista

>>>> now). It appears time is running out.

>>>>

>>>> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new

>>>> system with WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet).

>>>> Which is a bit scary. WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be

>>>> tolerable!). I'm almost tempted to get another computer with XP -

>>>> before that is too late.

>>>>

>>>> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about

>>>> $1000, complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if

>>>> anyone has any additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

>>>

>>> Bill, I've been using W2K in a new white box for over a year now

>>> (OK, not so new anymore) . I bought the OS off of ebay which you can

>>> still do. If you are uninterested in changing your "user experience"

>>> from 98, by which I mean the GUI, quicklaunch, access to data and OS

>>> files through the Explorer file tree, W2K is the way to go. You can

>>> replicate all of this EXACTLY as it appears and functions on your

>>> present system with one exeception, namely that because of its more

>>> complex hierarchal setup due to its intended use as a business OS,

>>> you have to dig a little deeper into the W2K Explorer file tree to

>>> access your personal data but to a large degree this can be

>>> mitigated as well. In all the time I have been using it, I have

>>> never experienced a BSOD. It is still supported, but if you're

>>> basing an OS choice on this criteria, then you most likely want to

>>> avoid any OS from a company relies on monopoly-induced phased

>>> obsolescence to keep up its income stream.

>>>

>>> An additional advantage: all your 98 programs will install

>>> successfully, and I daresay work better, on W2K than 98. I

>>> reinstalled Office 97, no problem. And Paint Shop Pro 7, which I've

>>> used for a long time, will not even install on XP.

>>

>> Wow, that is a big surprise to me. I wonder why not? Maybe it

>> doesn't recognize the newer operating system, so its installer balks?

>>

>>> But there are significant negatives. The big on for me is that W2K/XP

>>> is the Great Divide in Windows hardware compatibility (obviously

>>> XP/Vista is an even bigger one for most folks). For example most of

>>> the better MP3 units have associated software only installable on XP

>>> or later.

>>

>> But the older apps are still ok (at least for me). (Admitedly it's

>> getting hard to find newer stuff that is Win98 compatible).

>>

>> It also sounds like you weren't too impressed with XP.

>>

>>> So you have to

>>> think in terms of things like keeping spare print heads around and

>>> such. Another downer is that WGA is required for Windows Update (not

>>> too big a deal in this instance, however - since the OS itself

>>> doesn't require activation you won't be on the phone pleading with a

>>> twenty year old kid to revalidate your operating system).

>>

>> WGA?? It's to verify that you have bonafide system files, before

>> allowing any updates to them, I presume? (haven't used the

>> Windows Update thing in ages anyway)

>>

>>> One final thing about W2K, setting it up

>>> is considerably more difficult, but it's not rocket science, and the

>>> microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup is excellent for this,

>>> with a decided lack of extra chromosome types posting there.

>>>

>>> If you want to move on to something different and modern, rather

>>> than try and replicate what you now have, and you don't mind getting

>>> fleeced, than I'd suggest a Mac. I used an OSX laptop for about two

>>> weeks and had to resort to the Help system maybe once. IMO, it's a

>>> highly intuitive, beautifully executed piece of software.

>>>

>>> Good luck.

>>

>> Thanks.

>> At this point, I'm not doing much of anything, because I still haven't

>> convinced myself that I *have to*. And - I really don't want to

>> have to deal with TWO computer systems, (AND keep track of all the

>> data files between them), unless I get a bit more worried. :-)

>

> Nah, nah-- don't worry! You & I, Colorado, must be the last surviving

> Win98 user

 

No, I'm sure there are more. And even Win95, and maybe even Win 3.1!

(although probably not too many there)

> -- just as thanatoid is of Win95B! And I doubt he's as

> suicidal as he claims to be!

>

>> Everything I want, I have, anyways, so maybe I was just overreacting.

>

> Absolutely! Be content-- as you always have been!

 

Well, I haven't jumped out of the tree yet and gone to another op system,

and really have little interest in doing so. Until I'm forced to, if

ever. Like maybe when this computer dies - if ever.

>> But the idea that in the not-too-distant future, little will be

>> available except Vista and Vista compatible systems (for also

>> handling some multimedia work)... is a bit horrific)

>>

>> Maybe at that point (assuming the computer dies), one should consider

>> Linux - LOL. Or as you say W2K.

>

> They'll always be something new! Vista isn't the last one!

 

That's what I'm afraid of, too. But Vista is bad enough. Can it get

much worse? Nevermind, I already know the answer.

[Guest PCR]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:O0z8r4GNIHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| >PCR wrote:

| >>Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip

| >>

| >> Thanks.

| >> At this point, I'm not doing much of anything, because I still

haven't

| >> convinced myself that I *have to*. And - I really don't want

to

| >> have to deal with TWO computer systems, (AND keep track of all the

| >> data files between them), unless I get a bit more worried. :-)

| >

| > Nah, nah-- don't worry! You & I, Colorado, must be the last

surviving

| > Win98 user

|

| No, I'm sure there are more. And even Win95, and maybe even Win

3.1!

| (although probably not too many there)

 

No-- stick around, I meant, until you & I are the last one! DIDN'T we

sign a pact in blood for that? We used half-a-pint of glee's & Brian A's

blood apiece, as I recall it!

 

| > -- just as thanatoid is of Win95B! And I doubt he's as

| > suicidal as he claims to be!

| >

| >> Everything I want, I have, anyways, so maybe I was just

overreacting.

| >

| > Absolutely! Be content-- as you always have been!

|

| Well, I haven't jumped out of the tree yet and gone to another op

system,

| and really have little interest in doing so. Until I'm forced to,

if

| ever. Like maybe when this computer dies - if ever.

 

I know you did try that XP evaluator, though. Careful!

 

| >> But the idea that in the not-too-distant future, little will be

| >> available except Vista and Vista compatible systems (for also

| >> handling some multimedia work)... is a bit horrific)

| >>

| >> Maybe at that point (assuming the computer dies), one should

consider

| >> Linux - LOL. Or as you say W2K.

| >

| > They'll always be something new! Vista isn't the last one!

^... ther'll

|

| That's what I'm afraid of, too. But Vista is bad enough. Can it

get

| much worse? Nevermind, I already know the answer.

 

Don't tell. (I don't want to know!)

[Guest Ron Badour]

Re: Win98, then WinXP, and now only Vista??

 

I think you are looking at a fairly high end machine in that Inspirons start

at $499. I don't recall you being a gamer so you could probably get by with

a fairly low end machine. I can tell you that my 2 GHz Inspiron with 384 mb

of ram is a tad slow so I would recommend no less that 512 mb to push XP.

 

--

Regards

 

Ron Badour

MS MVP 1997 - 2008

 

 

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:%23vRmlOlLIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Well, this is a bit OT, and I'm still a die hard Win98SE fan, but....

>

> I was just checking this out, and it looks like even WinXP is getting

> harder

> to find on a new system these days. (For example, it seems Circuit

> City

> sells their systems only with Vista now). It appears time is running

> out.

>

> I checked the Dell site, and apparently you can still get a new system

> with

> WinXP, (but probably not for much longer, I bet). Which is a bit

> scary.

> WHO wants Vista????? (At least XP would be tolerable!). I'm almost

> tempted to get another computer with XP - before that is too late.

>

> I believe you can get a new Dell Inspiron, with WinXP, for about $1000,

> complete - which seems pretty reasonable. Anyways, if anyone has any

> additional info they want to share, go for it. :-)

>

>